Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2501	control, N = 1251	treatment, N = 1251	p-value2
age	250	51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)	50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)	51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)	0.559
gender	250				0.327
f		204 (82%)	99 (79%)	105 (84%)
m		46 (18%)	26 (21%)	20 (16%)
occupation	250				0.711
day_training		6 (2.4%)	2 (1.6%)	4 (3.2%)
full_time		29 (12%)	14 (11%)	15 (12%)
homemaker		32 (13%)	15 (12%)	17 (14%)
other		4 (1.6%)	1 (0.8%)	3 (2.4%)
part_time		43 (17%)	23 (18%)	20 (16%)
retired		61 (24%)	28 (22%)	33 (26%)
self_employ		8 (3.2%)	4 (3.2%)	4 (3.2%)
shelter		4 (1.6%)	4 (3.2%)	0 (0%)
student		4 (1.6%)	2 (1.6%)	2 (1.6%)
t_and_e		4 (1.6%)	3 (2.4%)	1 (0.8%)
unemploy		55 (22%)	29 (23%)	26 (21%)
marital	250				0.776
cohabitation		2 (0.8%)	0 (0%)	2 (1.6%)
divore		27 (11%)	15 (12%)	12 (9.6%)
in_relationship		6 (2.4%)	4 (3.2%)	2 (1.6%)
married		76 (30%)	35 (28%)	41 (33%)
none		117 (47%)	59 (47%)	58 (46%)
seperation		3 (1.2%)	2 (1.6%)	1 (0.8%)
widow		19 (7.6%)	10 (8.0%)	9 (7.2%)
edu	250				0.690
bachelor		54 (22%)	24 (19%)	30 (24%)
diploma		42 (17%)	25 (20%)	17 (14%)
hd_ad		6 (2.4%)	4 (3.2%)	2 (1.6%)
none		1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)
postgraduate		17 (6.8%)	9 (7.2%)	8 (6.4%)
primary		22 (8.8%)	9 (7.2%)	13 (10%)
secondary_1_3		29 (12%)	17 (14%)	12 (9.6%)
secondary_4_5		66 (26%)	31 (25%)	35 (28%)
secondary_6_7		13 (5.2%)	6 (4.8%)	7 (5.6%)
fam_income	250
10001_12000		10 (4.0%)	3 (2.4%)	7 (5.6%)
12001_14000		12 (4.8%)	4 (3.2%)	8 (6.4%)
14001_16000		12 (4.8%)	4 (3.2%)	8 (6.4%)
16001_18000		5 (2.0%)	3 (2.4%)	2 (1.6%)
18001_20000		12 (4.8%)	8 (6.4%)	4 (3.2%)
20001_above		43 (17%)	26 (21%)	17 (14%)
2001_4000		37 (15%)	18 (14%)	19 (15%)
4001_6000		31 (12%)	14 (11%)	17 (14%)
6001_8000		22 (8.8%)	13 (10%)	9 (7.2%)
8001_10000		20 (8.0%)	11 (8.8%)	9 (7.2%)
below_2000		46 (18%)	21 (17%)	25 (20%)
medication	250	224 (90%)	112 (90%)	112 (90%)	>0.999
onset_duration	250	15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)	14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)	15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)	0.817
onset_age	250	36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72)	35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)	36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68)	0.730
diagnosis_schizophrenia	250	50 (20%)	25 (20%)	25 (20%)	>0.999
diagnosis_delusional	250	13 (5.2%)	7 (5.6%)	6 (4.8%)	0.776
diagnosis_schizoaffective	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_schizoid	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_transient_psychotic	250	2 (0.8%)	1 (0.8%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic	250
no		250 (100%)	125 (100%)	125 (100%)
diagnosis_depression	250	138 (55%)	69 (55%)	69 (55%)	>0.999
diagnosis_bipolar	250	24 (9.6%)	10 (8.0%)	14 (11%)	0.390
diagnosis_anxiety	250	87 (35%)	46 (37%)	41 (33%)	0.507
diagnosis_phobia	250	10 (4.0%)	3 (2.4%)	7 (5.6%)	0.197
diagnosis_personality_disorders	250	3 (1.2%)	0 (0%)	3 (2.4%)	0.247
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_other	250	29 (12%)	17 (14%)	12 (9.6%)	0.323
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2501	control, N = 1251	treatment, N = 1251	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	250	3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)	3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)	3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	0.406
recovery_stage_b	250	17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)	17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)	17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)	0.835
ras_confidence	250	29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)	29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)	30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)	0.637
ras_willingness	250	11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)	11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)	11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)	0.905
ras_goal	250	17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)	17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)	17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)	0.413
ras_reliance	250	13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)	13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)	13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)	0.614
ras_domination	250	9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)	9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)	9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)	0.206
symptom	250	30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)	31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)	30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)	0.301
slof_work	250	22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)	22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)	22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)	0.989
slof_relationship	250	24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)	24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)	25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)	0.252
satisfaction	250	20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)	19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)	21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)	0.136
mhc_emotional	250	10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)	10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)	11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)	0.459
mhc_social	250	15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)	15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)	15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)	>0.999
mhc_psychological	250	21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)	21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)	21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)	0.715
resilisnce	250	16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)	16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)	16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)	0.177
social_provision	250	13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)	13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)	13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)	0.032
els_value_living	250	16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)	16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)	17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)	0.331
els_life_fulfill	250	12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)	12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)	13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)	0.100
els	250	29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)	29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)	30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)	0.154
social_connect	250	27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)	27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)	26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)	0.293
shs_agency	250	14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)	13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)	14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)	0.110
shs_pathway	250	15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)	15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)	16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)	0.057
shs	250	30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)	29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)	31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)	0.070
esteem	250	12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)	12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)	12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)	0.732
mlq_search	250	14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)	14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)	15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)	0.105
mlq_presence	250	13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)	13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)	13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)	0.396
mlq	250	28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)	27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)	28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)	0.183
empower	250	19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)	18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)	19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)	0.351
ismi_resistance	250	14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)	14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)	14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)	0.981
ismi_discrimation	250	11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)	11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)	11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)	0.823
sss_affective	250	10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)	10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)	10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)	0.629
sss_behavior	250	10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)	10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)	10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)	0.867
sss_cognitive	250	8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)	8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)	9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)	0.402
sss	250	29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)	29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)	29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)	0.682
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.20	0.109	2.99, 3.41
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.128	0.154	-0.431, 0.175	0.408
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.038	0.138	-0.309, 0.233	0.785
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.302	0.199	-0.088, 0.692	0.131
	Pseudo R square	0.006
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.270	17.4, 18.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.080	0.381	-0.827, 0.667	0.834
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.269	0.259	-0.778, 0.239	0.300
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.07	0.375	0.336, 1.80	0.005
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.7	0.504	28.7, 30.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.336	0.712	-1.06, 1.73	0.638
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.629	0.416	-0.186, 1.44	0.132
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.25	0.601	0.072, 2.43	0.039
	Pseudo R square	0.020
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.6	0.185	11.3, 12.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.032	0.261	-0.480, 0.544	0.903
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.012	0.182	-0.345, 0.369	0.949
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.325	0.263	-0.190, 0.841	0.217
	Pseudo R square	0.005
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.2	0.291	16.6, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.344	0.412	-0.463, 1.15	0.404
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.385	0.266	-0.136, 0.906	0.149
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.418	0.384	-0.334, 1.17	0.277
	Pseudo R square	0.015
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.1	0.263	12.6, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.184	0.372	-0.545, 0.913	0.621
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.314	0.216	-0.109, 0.738	0.148
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.324	0.313	-0.289, 0.936	0.302
	Pseudo R square	0.010
ras_domination	(Intercept)	9.95	0.215	9.53, 10.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.392	0.304	-0.987, 0.203	0.198
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.025	0.218	-0.403, 0.452	0.910
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.808	0.315	0.191, 1.43	0.011
	Pseudo R square	0.014
symptom	(Intercept)	31.5	0.876	29.8, 33.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.29	1.239	-3.72, 1.14	0.299
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.42	0.689	-2.77, -0.066	0.041
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.018	0.996	-1.93, 1.97	0.985
	Pseudo R square	0.009
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.1	0.408	21.3, 22.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.008	0.577	-1.14, 1.12	0.989
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.337	0.358	-0.366, 1.04	0.349
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.318	0.518	-0.697, 1.33	0.540
	Pseudo R square	0.003
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	24.5	0.514	23.5, 25.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.840	0.727	-0.586, 2.27	0.249
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.288	0.444	-0.582, 1.16	0.517
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.337	0.642	-0.921, 1.59	0.600
	Pseudo R square	0.009
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.7	0.642	18.4, 20.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.37	0.908	-0.412, 3.15	0.133
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.11	0.506	0.114, 2.10	0.030
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.013	0.732	-1.45, 1.42	0.986
	Pseudo R square	0.014
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.6	0.334	9.99, 11.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.352	0.472	-0.574, 1.28	0.457
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.304	0.270	-0.225, 0.833	0.262
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.041	0.390	-0.724, 0.806	0.916
	Pseudo R square	0.004
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.1	0.542	14.1, 16.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.000	0.766	-1.50, 1.50	1.00
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.845	0.449	-0.035, 1.72	0.061
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.192	0.649	-1.08, 1.46	0.768
	Pseudo R square	0.006
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.6	0.628	20.3, 22.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.320	0.888	-1.42, 2.06	0.719
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.04	0.494	0.067, 2.00	0.037
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.141	0.715	-1.54, 1.26	0.844
	Pseudo R square	0.005
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.2	0.390	15.4, 16.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.760	0.552	-0.322, 1.84	0.170
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.759	0.357	0.059, 1.46	0.035
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.495	0.516	-0.517, 1.51	0.339
	Pseudo R square	0.025
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.2	0.250	12.7, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.744	0.354	0.050, 1.44	0.037
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.132	0.220	-0.563, 0.299	0.549
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.481	0.318	-0.141, 1.10	0.131
	Pseudo R square	0.030
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.8	0.285	16.2, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.392	0.403	-0.398, 1.18	0.332
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.352	0.242	-0.123, 0.826	0.148
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.341	0.350	-0.344, 1.03	0.330
	Pseudo R square	0.014
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.4	0.294	11.8, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.696	0.416	-0.120, 1.51	0.096
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.275	0.233	-0.181, 0.731	0.239
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.275	0.337	-0.385, 0.934	0.415
	Pseudo R square	0.019
els	(Intercept)	29.2	0.539	28.1, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.09	0.762	-0.406, 2.58	0.154
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.639	0.408	-0.161, 1.44	0.119
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.605	0.590	-0.552, 1.76	0.307
	Pseudo R square	0.018
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.9	0.818	26.3, 29.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.22	1.157	-3.48, 1.05	0.294
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.851	0.650	-2.12, 0.424	0.192
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.49	0.940	-3.33, 0.353	0.115
	Pseudo R square	0.018
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.8	0.447	13.0, 14.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.01	0.632	-0.231, 2.25	0.112
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.358	0.349	-0.325, 1.04	0.306
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.550	0.504	-0.438, 1.54	0.277
	Pseudo R square	0.019
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.3	0.363	14.6, 16.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.01	0.513	0.002, 2.01	0.050
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.496	0.312	-0.116, 1.11	0.114
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.405	0.451	-0.479, 1.29	0.371
	Pseudo R square	0.028
shs	(Intercept)	29.2	0.771	27.7, 30.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.02	1.090	-0.120, 4.15	0.065
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.854	0.604	-0.330, 2.04	0.159
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.949	0.873	-0.763, 2.66	0.279
	Pseudo R square	0.025
esteem	(Intercept)	12.8	0.140	12.5, 13.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.072	0.198	-0.460, 0.316	0.717
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.205	0.169	-0.536, 0.125	0.225
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.303	0.243	-0.173, 0.779	0.214
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.4	0.311	13.8, 15.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.720	0.439	-0.141, 1.58	0.102
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.595	0.326	-0.045, 1.23	0.070
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.628	0.471	-1.55, 0.295	0.184
	Pseudo R square	0.008
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.2	0.377	12.4, 13.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.464	0.533	-0.581, 1.51	0.385
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.577	0.348	-0.105, 1.26	0.099
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.371	0.503	-0.614, 1.36	0.461
	Pseudo R square	0.013
mlq	(Intercept)	27.5	0.618	26.3, 28.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.18	0.874	-0.528, 2.90	0.176
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.18	0.587	0.030, 2.33	0.046
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.273	0.847	-1.93, 1.39	0.748
	Pseudo R square	0.011
empower	(Intercept)	18.8	0.401	18.1, 19.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.528	0.568	-0.584, 1.64	0.353
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.682	0.340	0.015, 1.35	0.046
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.127	0.492	-0.836, 1.09	0.796
	Pseudo R square	0.011
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.4	0.224	13.9, 14.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.008	0.317	-0.629, 0.613	0.980
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.195	0.247	-0.288, 0.679	0.429
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.544	0.356	-0.153, 1.24	0.128
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	11.8	0.276	11.3, 12.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.088	0.390	-0.853, 0.677	0.822
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.447	0.286	-1.01, 0.114	0.120
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.519	0.413	-1.33, 0.291	0.211
	Pseudo R square	0.016
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.4	0.325	9.76, 11.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.224	0.459	-0.676, 1.12	0.626
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.432	0.268	-0.957, 0.094	0.109
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.640	0.388	-1.40, 0.120	0.100
	Pseudo R square	0.012
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.2	0.332	9.52, 10.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.080	0.470	-1.00, 0.841	0.865
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.589	0.272	-1.12, -0.055	0.032
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.201	0.394	-0.972, 0.571	0.611
	Pseudo R square	0.009
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.71	0.333	8.06, 9.37
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.408	0.471	-0.516, 1.33	0.387
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.394	0.270	-0.923, 0.136	0.146
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.627	0.391	-1.39, 0.139	0.110
	Pseudo R square	0.011
sss	(Intercept)	29.3	0.933	27.5, 31.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.552	1.320	-2.03, 3.14	0.676
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.41	0.690	-2.77, -0.062	0.042
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.41	0.997	-3.36, 0.548	0.160
	Pseudo R square	0.011
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(426) = 29.29, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(426) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.23], t(426) = -0.27, p = 0.785; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.69], t(426) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(426) = 66.34, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(426) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.24], t(426) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.08])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [0.34, 1.80], t(426) = 2.86, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [0.11, 0.60])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(426) = 58.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(426) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.44], t(426) = 1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [0.07, 2.43], t(426) = 2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [0.01, 0.43])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(426) = 62.92, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(426) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37], t(426) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 5.72e-03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.84], t(426) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.75], t(426) = 59.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(426) = 0.84, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.91], t(426) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.17], t(426) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(426) = 49.95, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(426) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.74], t(426) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.94], t(426) = 1.04, p = 0.301; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(426) = 46.33, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(426) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.45], t(426) = 0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.19])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.19, 1.43], t(426) = 2.57, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.08, 0.60])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(426) = 35.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(426) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.77, -0.07], t(426) = -2.06, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.29, -6.83e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.97], t(426) = 0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = 1.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.86], t(426) = 54.10, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(426) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.04], t(426) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.33], t(426) = 0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.29])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(426) = 47.64, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(426) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.16], t(426) = 0.65, p = 0.516; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.59], t(426) = 0.52, p = 0.600; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.28])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(426) = 30.62, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(426) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [0.11, 2.10], t(426) = 2.19, p = 0.029; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [0.02, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.45, 1.42], t(426) = -0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = -1.81e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(426) = 31.87, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(426) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.83], t(426) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.81], t(426) = 0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.22])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.07, 16.19], t(426) = 27.92, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.57e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(426) = -7.27e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -3.70e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.72], t(426) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-5.85e-03, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.46], t(426) = 0.30, p = 0.768; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.25])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(426) = 34.32, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(426) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [0.07, 2.00], t(426) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [9.73e-03, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.26], t(426) = -0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(426) = 41.44, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(426) = 1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.06, 1.46], t(426) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.01, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.51], t(426) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.34])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(426) = 52.57, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(426) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.30], t(426) = -0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.11])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.10], t(426) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.39])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(426) = 58.78, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(426) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.83], t(426) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.03], t(426) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.32])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(426) = 42.16, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(426) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.73], t(426) = 1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.93], t(426) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(426) = 54.13, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(426) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.44], t(426) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.76], t(426) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.29])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.28, 29.48], t(426) = 34.07, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.05], t(426) = -1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.12, 0.42], t(426) = -1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-3.33, 0.35], t(426) = -1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.04])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(426) = 30.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.25], t(426) = 1.60, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.04], t(426) = 1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.54], t(426) = 1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.31])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(426) = 42.25, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [2.48e-03, 2.01], t(426) = 1.96, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [6.05e-04, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.11], t(426) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.29], t(426) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.31])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.68], t(426) = 37.85, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.12, 4.15], t(426) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.04], t(426) = 1.41, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.66], t(426) = 1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.31])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(426) = 91.34, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(426) = -0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.13], t(426) = -1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.08])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.78], t(426) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.50])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(426) = 46.22, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(426) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.23], t(426) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.29], t(426) = -1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.08])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(426) = 34.90, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(426) = 0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.26], t(426) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.36], t(426) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(426) = 44.53, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(426) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [0.03, 2.33], t(426) = 2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [4.35e-03, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.39], t(426) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.20])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.63], t(426) = 46.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.64], t(426) = 0.93, p = 0.352; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [0.02, 1.35], t(426) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [3.41e-03, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.09], t(426) = 0.26, p = 0.796; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.25])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(426) = 64.13, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(426) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.20e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.68], t(426) = 0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.24], t(426) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.50])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(426) = 42.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(426) = -0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.11], t(426) = -1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.04])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.29], t(426) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.09])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(426) = 32.03, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(426) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.09], t(426) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.12], t(426) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.03])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(426) = 30.63, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(426) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.12, -0.05], t(426) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.30, -0.01])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.57], t(426) = -0.51, p = 0.610; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.15])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(426) = 26.14, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.33], t(426) = 0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.14], t(426) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.04])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.14], t(426) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.04])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(426) = 31.38, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.03, 3.14], t(426) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-2.77, -0.06], t(426) = -2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.27, -5.97e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-3.36, 0.55], t(426) = -1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	1,381.826	1,394.031	-687.913	1,375.826
recovery_stage_a	random	6	1,384.334	1,408.744	-686.167	1,372.334	3.492	3	0.322
recovery_stage_b	null	3	2,098.613	2,110.819	-1,046.307	2,092.613
recovery_stage_b	random	6	2,094.129	2,118.540	-1,041.065	2,082.129	10.484	3	0.015
ras_confidence	null	3	2,602.769	2,614.975	-1,298.385	2,596.769
ras_confidence	random	6	2,587.337	2,611.748	-1,287.669	2,575.337	21.432	3	0.000
ras_willingness	null	3	1,772.633	1,784.838	-883.316	1,766.633
ras_willingness	random	6	1,775.057	1,799.468	-881.529	1,763.057	3.575	3	0.311
ras_goal	null	3	2,150.958	2,163.163	-1,072.479	2,144.958
ras_goal	random	6	2,145.036	2,169.447	-1,066.518	2,133.036	11.922	3	0.008
ras_reliance	null	3	2,029.403	2,041.608	-1,011.702	2,023.403
ras_reliance	random	6	2,024.773	2,049.183	-1,006.386	2,012.773	10.631	3	0.014
ras_domination	null	3	1,920.985	1,933.191	-957.493	1,914.985
ras_domination	random	6	1,913.597	1,938.007	-950.798	1,901.597	13.388	3	0.004
symptom	null	3	3,052.638	3,064.843	-1,523.319	3,046.638
symptom	random	6	3,049.599	3,074.010	-1,518.800	3,037.599	9.038	3	0.029
slof_work	null	3	2,422.330	2,434.536	-1,208.165	2,416.330
slof_work	random	6	2,424.338	2,448.748	-1,206.169	2,412.338	3.993	3	0.262
slof_relationship	null	3	2,617.471	2,629.676	-1,305.736	2,611.471
slof_relationship	random	6	2,619.280	2,643.690	-1,303.640	2,607.280	4.191	3	0.242
satisfaction	null	3	2,787.392	2,799.597	-1,390.696	2,781.392
satisfaction	random	6	2,782.167	2,806.578	-1,385.084	2,770.167	11.225	3	0.011
mhc_emotional	null	3	2,223.058	2,235.264	-1,108.529	2,217.058
mhc_emotional	random	6	2,225.663	2,250.073	-1,106.831	2,213.663	3.395	3	0.335
mhc_social	null	3	2,653.394	2,665.600	-1,323.697	2,647.394
mhc_social	random	6	2,651.139	2,675.550	-1,319.570	2,639.139	8.255	3	0.041
mhc_psychological	null	3	2,763.713	2,775.919	-1,378.857	2,757.713
mhc_psychological	random	6	2,762.374	2,786.785	-1,375.187	2,750.374	7.339	3	0.062
resilisnce	null	3	2,411.713	2,423.919	-1,202.857	2,405.713
resilisnce	random	6	2,399.125	2,423.535	-1,193.562	2,387.125	18.589	3	0.000
social_provision	null	3	2,007.036	2,019.241	-1,000.518	2,001.036
social_provision	random	6	2,002.731	2,027.141	-995.365	1,990.731	10.305	3	0.016
els_value_living	null	3	2,109.511	2,121.716	-1,051.755	2,103.511
els_value_living	random	6	2,104.253	2,128.664	-1,046.126	2,092.253	11.258	3	0.010
els_life_fulfill	null	3	2,113.540	2,125.746	-1,053.770	2,107.540
els_life_fulfill	random	6	2,109.156	2,133.567	-1,048.578	2,097.156	10.384	3	0.016
els	null	3	2,625.613	2,637.818	-1,309.807	2,619.613
els	random	6	2,617.765	2,642.176	-1,302.883	2,605.765	13.848	3	0.003
social_connect	null	3	3,003.871	3,016.076	-1,498.935	2,997.871
social_connect	random	6	2,994.065	3,018.476	-1,491.033	2,982.065	15.806	3	0.001
shs_agency	null	3	2,470.476	2,482.681	-1,232.238	2,464.476
shs_agency	random	6	2,465.378	2,489.788	-1,226.689	2,453.378	11.098	3	0.011
shs_pathway	null	3	2,326.025	2,338.230	-1,160.013	2,320.025
shs_pathway	random	6	2,316.479	2,340.889	-1,152.239	2,304.479	15.547	3	0.001
shs	null	3	2,946.928	2,959.133	-1,470.464	2,940.928
shs	random	6	2,937.932	2,962.342	-1,462.966	2,925.932	14.996	3	0.002
esteem	null	3	1,584.675	1,596.881	-789.338	1,578.675
esteem	random	6	1,588.787	1,613.197	-788.393	1,576.787	1.889	3	0.596
mlq_search	null	3	2,240.531	2,252.736	-1,117.265	2,234.531
mlq_search	random	6	2,241.814	2,266.224	-1,114.907	2,229.814	4.717	3	0.194
mlq_presence	null	3	2,376.124	2,388.329	-1,185.062	2,370.124
mlq_presence	random	6	2,371.347	2,395.758	-1,179.674	2,359.347	10.776	3	0.013
mlq	null	3	2,808.726	2,820.931	-1,401.363	2,802.726
mlq	random	6	2,806.855	2,831.266	-1,397.428	2,794.855	7.871	3	0.049
empower	null	3	2,403.310	2,415.515	-1,198.655	2,397.310
empower	random	6	2,399.152	2,423.563	-1,193.576	2,387.152	10.157	3	0.017
ismi_resistance	null	3	1,975.336	1,987.541	-984.668	1,969.336
ismi_resistance	random	6	1,972.029	1,996.439	-980.014	1,960.029	9.307	3	0.025
ismi_discrimation	null	3	2,143.014	2,155.219	-1,068.507	2,137.014
ismi_discrimation	random	6	2,135.718	2,160.128	-1,061.859	2,123.718	13.296	3	0.004
sss_affective	null	3	2,218.918	2,231.123	-1,106.459	2,212.918
sss_affective	random	6	2,208.064	2,232.474	-1,098.032	2,196.064	16.854	3	0.001
sss_behavior	null	3	2,231.728	2,243.933	-1,112.864	2,225.728
sss_behavior	random	6	2,225.406	2,249.817	-1,106.703	2,213.406	12.322	3	0.006
sss_cognitive	null	3	2,233.690	2,245.895	-1,113.845	2,227.690
sss_cognitive	random	6	2,224.536	2,248.946	-1,106.268	2,212.536	15.154	3	0.002
sss	null	3	3,097.012	3,109.217	-1,545.506	3,091.012
sss	random	6	3,084.007	3,108.417	-1,536.003	3,072.007	19.005	3	0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	125	3.20 ± 1.22		125	3.07 ± 1.22		0.408	0.129
recovery_stage_a	2nd	95	3.16 ± 1.21	0.038	87	3.34 ± 1.20	-0.266	0.332	-0.175
recovery_stage_b	1st	125	17.88 ± 3.01		125	17.80 ± 3.01		0.834	0.044
recovery_stage_b	2nd	95	17.61 ± 2.87	0.147	87	18.60 ± 2.83	-0.438	0.020	-0.542
ras_confidence	1st	125	29.69 ± 5.63		125	30.02 ± 5.63		0.638	-0.115
ras_confidence	2nd	95	30.32 ± 5.26	-0.216	87	31.90 ± 5.16	-0.645	0.041	-0.544
ras_willingness	1st	125	11.62 ± 2.07		125	11.66 ± 2.07		0.903	-0.025
ras_willingness	2nd	95	11.64 ± 1.97	-0.009	87	11.99 ± 1.95	-0.262	0.220	-0.278
ras_goal	1st	125	17.18 ± 3.26		125	17.53 ± 3.26		0.404	-0.184
ras_goal	2nd	95	17.57 ± 3.08	-0.206	87	18.33 ± 3.03	-0.430	0.093	-0.408
ras_reliance	1st	125	13.14 ± 2.94		125	13.33 ± 2.94		0.621	-0.121
ras_reliance	2nd	95	13.46 ± 2.75	-0.208	87	13.97 ± 2.70	-0.421	0.209	-0.335
ras_domination	1st	125	9.95 ± 2.40		125	9.56 ± 2.40		0.198	0.254
ras_domination	2nd	95	9.98 ± 2.30	-0.016	87	10.39 ± 2.28	-0.540	0.221	-0.270
symptom	1st	125	31.50 ± 9.79		125	30.21 ± 9.79		0.299	0.267
symptom	2nd	95	30.08 ± 9.09	0.294	87	28.81 ± 8.92	0.290	0.342	0.264
slof_work	1st	125	22.06 ± 4.56		125	22.06 ± 4.56		0.989	0.003
slof_work	2nd	95	22.40 ± 4.29	-0.134	87	22.71 ± 4.22	-0.260	0.624	-0.123
slof_relationship	1st	125	24.50 ± 5.75		125	25.34 ± 5.75		0.249	-0.270
slof_relationship	2nd	95	24.79 ± 5.40	-0.093	87	25.97 ± 5.31	-0.201	0.139	-0.378
satisfaction	1st	125	19.66 ± 7.18		125	21.03 ± 7.18		0.133	-0.386
satisfaction	2nd	95	20.77 ± 6.67	-0.312	87	22.13 ± 6.54	-0.309	0.167	-0.383
mhc_emotional	1st	125	10.65 ± 3.74		125	11.00 ± 3.74		0.457	-0.186
mhc_emotional	2nd	95	10.95 ± 3.48	-0.161	87	11.35 ± 3.41	-0.183	0.442	-0.208
mhc_social	1st	125	15.13 ± 6.06		125	15.13 ± 6.06		1.000	0.000
mhc_social	2nd	95	15.97 ± 5.66	-0.269	87	16.16 ± 5.56	-0.330	0.818	-0.061
mhc_psychological	1st	125	21.55 ± 7.02		125	21.87 ± 7.02		0.719	-0.093
mhc_psychological	2nd	95	22.59 ± 6.52	-0.300	87	22.77 ± 6.39	-0.259	0.852	-0.052
resilisnce	1st	125	16.18 ± 4.36		125	16.94 ± 4.36		0.170	-0.302
resilisnce	2nd	95	16.94 ± 4.13	-0.302	87	18.19 ± 4.07	-0.499	0.040	-0.499
social_provision	1st	125	13.17 ± 2.80		125	13.91 ± 2.80		0.037	-0.482
social_provision	2nd	95	13.04 ± 2.63	0.086	87	14.26 ± 2.59	-0.226	0.002	-0.794
els_value_living	1st	125	16.76 ± 3.19		125	17.15 ± 3.19		0.332	-0.231
els_value_living	2nd	95	17.11 ± 2.99	-0.207	87	17.85 ± 2.94	-0.408	0.096	-0.432
els_life_fulfill	1st	125	12.41 ± 3.29		125	13.10 ± 3.29		0.096	-0.427
els_life_fulfill	2nd	95	12.68 ± 3.06	-0.169	87	13.65 ± 3.00	-0.337	0.031	-0.596
els	1st	125	29.17 ± 6.02		125	30.26 ± 6.02		0.154	-0.381
els	2nd	95	29.81 ± 5.57	-0.224	87	31.50 ± 5.46	-0.436	0.039	-0.593
social_connect	1st	125	27.88 ± 9.15		125	26.66 ± 9.15		0.294	0.267
social_connect	2nd	95	27.03 ± 8.51	0.187	87	24.32 ± 8.34	0.514	0.031	0.595
shs_agency	1st	125	13.84 ± 5.00		125	14.85 ± 5.00		0.112	-0.414
shs_agency	2nd	95	14.20 ± 4.64	-0.147	87	15.76 ± 4.54	-0.372	0.023	-0.639
shs_pathway	1st	125	15.33 ± 4.06		125	16.34 ± 4.06		0.050	-0.461
shs_pathway	2nd	95	15.82 ± 3.80	-0.226	87	17.24 ± 3.74	-0.411	0.012	-0.645
shs	1st	125	29.17 ± 8.62		125	31.18 ± 8.62		0.065	-0.477
shs	2nd	95	30.02 ± 8.00	-0.202	87	32.99 ± 7.84	-0.427	0.012	-0.702
esteem	1st	125	12.80 ± 1.57		125	12.73 ± 1.57		0.717	0.060
esteem	2nd	95	12.59 ± 1.54	0.170	87	12.83 ± 1.53	-0.081	0.311	-0.191
mlq_search	1st	125	14.36 ± 3.47		125	15.08 ± 3.47		0.102	-0.312
mlq_search	2nd	95	14.95 ± 3.34	-0.257	87	15.05 ± 3.32	0.014	0.852	-0.040
mlq_presence	1st	125	13.15 ± 4.21		125	13.62 ± 4.21		0.385	-0.189
mlq_presence	2nd	95	13.73 ± 3.99	-0.236	87	14.56 ± 3.93	-0.387	0.156	-0.341
mlq	1st	125	27.51 ± 6.91		125	28.70 ± 6.91		0.176	-0.286
mlq	2nd	95	28.69 ± 6.56	-0.285	87	29.60 ± 6.48	-0.220	0.347	-0.220
empower	1st	125	18.85 ± 4.49		125	19.38 ± 4.49		0.353	-0.221
empower	2nd	95	19.53 ± 4.20	-0.286	87	20.19 ± 4.13	-0.339	0.290	-0.275
ismi_resistance	1st	125	14.36 ± 2.50		125	14.35 ± 2.50		0.980	0.005
ismi_resistance	2nd	95	14.56 ± 2.43	-0.111	87	15.09 ± 2.41	-0.422	0.136	-0.306
ismi_discrimation	1st	125	11.79 ± 3.08		125	11.70 ± 3.08		0.822	0.043
ismi_discrimation	2nd	95	11.34 ± 2.96	0.221	87	10.74 ± 2.94	0.477	0.167	0.300
sss_affective	1st	125	10.40 ± 3.63		125	10.62 ± 3.63		0.626	-0.119
sss_affective	2nd	95	9.97 ± 3.39	0.230	87	9.55 ± 3.33	0.570	0.405	0.221
sss_behavior	1st	125	10.18 ± 3.71		125	10.10 ± 3.71		0.865	0.042
sss_behavior	2nd	95	9.59 ± 3.47	0.309	87	9.31 ± 3.40	0.414	0.582	0.147
sss_cognitive	1st	125	8.71 ± 3.73		125	9.12 ± 3.73		0.387	-0.216
sss_cognitive	2nd	95	8.32 ± 3.47	0.208	87	8.10 ± 3.41	0.540	0.668	0.116
sss	1st	125	29.29 ± 10.43		125	29.84 ± 10.43		0.676	-0.115
sss	2nd	95	27.87 ± 9.63	0.294	87	27.02 ± 9.42	0.586	0.546	0.177

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(390.68) = -0.83, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.18)

2st

t(421.05) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.53)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(325.14) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(389.46) = 2.34, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.82)

ras_confidence

1st

t(302.20) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)

2st

t(365.03) = 2.05, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.07 to 3.11)

ras_willingness

1st

t(329.65) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.55)

2st

t(393.13) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.93)

ras_goal

1st

t(316.20) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.15)

2st

t(381.19) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.65)

ras_reliance

1st

t(301.59) = 0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(364.23) = 1.26, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.30)

ras_domination

1st

t(335.33) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)

2st

t(397.31) = 1.22, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.08)

symptom

1st

t(296.53) = -1.04, p = 0.299, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)

2st

t(357.17) = -0.95, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.90 to 1.36)

slof_work

1st

t(310.44) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.13)

2st

t(375.06) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.55)

slof_relationship

1st

t(307.97) = 1.15, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(372.21) = 1.48, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.74)

satisfaction

1st

t(296.76) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)

2st

t(357.50) = 1.38, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.57 to 3.28)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(299.61) = 0.75, p = 0.457, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)

2st

t(361.55) = 0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.40)

mhc_social

1st

t(302.56) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(365.50) = 0.23, p = 0.818, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.44 to 1.83)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(296.59) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(357.25) = 0.19, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.06)

resilisnce

1st

t(316.66) = 1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.85)

2st

t(381.65) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.45)

social_provision

1st

t(310.25) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(374.84) = 3.16, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.46 to 1.99)

els_value_living

1st

t(305.67) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)

2st

t(369.45) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.60)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(297.14) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.52)

2st

t(358.06) = 2.16, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.85)

els

1st

t(292.60) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)

2st

t(351.22) = 2.07, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.08 to 3.30)

social_connect

1st

t(297.63) = -1.05, p = 0.294, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.49 to 1.06)

2st

t(358.77) = -2.17, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-5.16 to -0.25)

shs_agency

1st

t(295.61) = 1.60, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.25)

2st

t(355.83) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.90)

shs_pathway

1st

t(307.46) = 1.96, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.02)

2st

t(371.61) = 2.52, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.31 to 2.51)

shs

1st

t(296.14) = 1.85, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.16)

2st

t(356.61) = 2.52, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.65 to 5.28)

esteem

1st

t(376.64) = -0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)

2st

t(417.16) = 1.01, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.68)

mlq_search

1st

t(342.42) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(401.93) = 0.19, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.06)

mlq_presence

1st

t(318.08) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.51)

2st

t(383.05) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.99)

mlq

1st

t(322.78) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)

2st

t(387.42) = 0.94, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.81)

empower

1st

t(305.52) = 0.93, p = 0.353, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.64)

2st

t(369.25) = 1.06, p = 0.290, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.87)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(353.61) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(408.04) = 1.49, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.24)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(339.85) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)

2st

t(400.33) = -1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.25)

sss_affective

1st

t(302.23) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(365.07) = -0.83, p = 0.405, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.40 to 0.56)

sss_behavior

1st

t(301.32) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.84)

2st

t(363.87) = -0.55, p = 0.582, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.72)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(299.94) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(362.00) = -0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.78)

sss

1st

t(290.15) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)

2st

t(347.29) = -0.60, p = 0.546, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.63 to 1.92)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(220.80) = 1.84, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.55)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(202.18) = 2.96, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(195.90) = 4.33, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (1.02 to 2.74)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(203.40) = 1.78, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.71)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(199.75) = 2.90, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.35)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(195.73) = 2.82, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.08)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(204.94) = 3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.28)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(194.32) = -1.94, p = 0.107, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.82 to 0.02)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(198.17) = 1.75, p = 0.163, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.39)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(197.49) = 1.35, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.54)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(194.38) = 2.07, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(195.18) = 1.22, p = 0.444, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.90)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(196.00) = 2.21, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.96)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(194.34) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.91)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(199.87) = 3.37, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.52 to 1.99)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(198.12) = 1.52, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.80)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(196.86) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(194.49) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.03)

els

1st vs 2st

t(193.22) = 2.92, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.40 to 2.09)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(194.63) = -3.45, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-3.68 to -1.00)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(194.07) = 2.49, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.63)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(197.35) = 2.76, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.54)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(194.21) = 2.86, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.56 to 3.05)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(216.48) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.44)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(206.87) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.64)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(200.26) = 2.61, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.66)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(201.54) = 1.48, p = 0.279, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.11)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(196.81) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(209.94) = 2.88, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.25)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(206.17) = -3.24, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.55 to -0.38)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(195.91) = -3.82, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.62 to -0.52)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(195.65) = -2.77, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.35 to -0.23)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(195.27) = -3.62, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.58 to -0.46)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(192.53) = -3.91, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.24 to -1.40)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(211.16) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.23)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(196.88) = -1.04, p = 0.601, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.24)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(192.10) = 1.51, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.45)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(197.81) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.37)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(195.03) = 1.45, p = 0.298, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.91)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(191.97) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.11 to 0.74)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(198.99) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.46)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(190.90) = -2.05, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.78 to -0.06)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(193.83) = 0.94, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.04)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(193.31) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.16)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(190.95) = 2.18, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.11)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(191.55) = 1.13, p = 0.523, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.84)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(192.18) = 1.88, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.73)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(190.91) = 2.09, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.01)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(195.12) = 2.12, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.46)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(193.79) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.30)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(192.83) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.13 to 0.83)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(191.03) = 1.18, p = 0.479, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.73)

els

1st vs 2st

t(190.06) = 1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.45)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(191.13) = -1.31, p = 0.385, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.13 to 0.43)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(190.71) = 1.03, p = 0.612, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.05)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(193.20) = 1.59, p = 0.228, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.11)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(190.82) = 1.41, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.05)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(207.82) = -1.22, p = 0.450, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.13)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(200.46) = 1.82, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.24)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(195.42) = 1.66, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.26)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(196.39) = 2.01, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.02 to 2.34)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(192.80) = 2.00, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.35)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(202.80) = 0.79, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.68)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(199.92) = -1.56, p = 0.240, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.12)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(192.11) = -1.61, p = 0.219, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.10)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(191.92) = -2.16, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.13 to -0.05)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(191.62) = -1.46, p = 0.293, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.14)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(189.54) = -2.05, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.77 to -0.05)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance